Report on the ALCTS Continuing Resources
Section College and Research Libraries
Interest Group Meeting. American Library
Association Annual Conference, Las Vegas,
June 2014
Authors: Buddy Pennington & Doralyn Rossmann
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Technical Services Quarterly on June
15, 2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/07317131.2015.1031609.
Pennington, Buddy & Doralyn Rossmann, "Report on the ALCTS Continuing Resources Section
College and Research Libraries Interest Group Meeting. American Library Association Annual
Conference, Las Vegas, June 2014" Technical Services Quarterly 32, no. 3 (June 15, 2015): 325–
327. doi:10.1080/07317131.2015.1031609.
Made available through Montana State University’s ScholarWorks
scholarworks.montana.edu
Report on the ALCTS Continuing Resources
Section College and Research Libraries
Interest Group Meeting. American Library
Association Annual Conference, Las Vegas,
June 2014
Buddy Pennington & Doralyn Rossmann
The ALCTS Continuing Resources Section Collection and Research Libraries Interest Group met on Sunday, June 29, to discuss aspects of the topic Continuing
Resources and the Role of Libraries with Publishing in Open Access and Hybrid Journals.
The discussion began by examining different models of supporting author fees that authors typically pay to make their research open access. One model is the
membership model, where an institution pays a membership fee and researchers from that organization then receive support to make their research open access.
One example of this membership model is BioMed Central (http://www.biomedcentral.com/). BioMed Central, which publishes over 250 open access journals,
provides a variety of memberships including a prepay membership; a shared support membership, in which the cost of publishing is shared between the institution
and the author; and a supporter membership, in which the institution pays a flat fee and affiliated authors then receive a discount on any author fees when
publishing in one of the BioMed Central journals. BioMed Central also provides the foundation membership free of charge to institutions from developing nations
that meet specific criteria.
A number of libraries have set up programs to fund author fees associated with open access publishing. Two examples include the Johns Hopkins Libraries Open
Access Promotion Fund (http://guides.library.jhu.edu/oapf) and the University of California—Irvine Libraries Open Access Publishing Fund
(http://www.lib.uci.edu/about/projects/scamp/uci-libraries-open-access-publishing-fund.html). Details of specific programs will vary. Considerations include who is
eligible for funding, the amount of funding, etc. Should libraries provide funding to all faculty or target those disciplines that lack grant resources to support
publication? Do libraries fund author fees in hybrid journals at the same rate as open access journals, at a lower rate, or not at all?
Faculty may be familiar with many journals in their discipline, but newer titles launching under the auspices of open access are not as well known. A number of
publishers and standalone journals have arisen that seek to collect fees from authors without providing typical editorial or publishing services or without providing
publications that meet the benchmark of other quality academic journals in the discipline. Known as predatory publishers or journals, these venues seek to exploit
a business model where the academic author pays a fee to make the article available to everyone. Whether providing financial support or not, librarians can help
faculty in identifying quality open access publications and avoiding predatory ones. A resource for this is the site Scholarly Open Access (http://scholarlyoa.com/),
maintained by Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the Auraria Library, University of Colorado—Denver. The site maintains a listing of potentially predatory publishers and
standalone journals as well as a published set of criteria used in making such a determination. This site can provide guidance, but ultimately librarians and authors
need to make the final determination on the quality of an open access publication themselves.
Libraries still face challenges in engaging with faculty regarding open access publishing. A 2012 Ithaka S+R survey describes a significant gap between faculty
and library directors in rating how important academic libraries are in providing “active support that helps to increase the productivity of my research and
scholarship.”1 How do libraries close this gap in demonstrating to faculty that they remain essential partners in the academy but in new and innovative ways as
scholarly publishing changes?
One strategy is for libraries to work with faculty in establishing an open access policy for their campus. Kevin Smith describes such an approach at Duke
University.2 Other strategies include hiring a scholarly communications librarian and working more closely with the institution's research office. A good long-term
strategy is to engage graduate students as they will be tomorrow's faculty. Some libraries now make theses and dissertations available to all, while some allow
students to embargo their publication. A recent statement from the American History Association encouraging libraries and university to embargo history PhD
dissertations for 6 years serves as a reminder that open access publishing is complicated by many diverse viewpoints and perspectives.
Another strategy is to educate faculty on author rights and support the negotiation efforts for faculty authors to retain their rights when publishing. Many libraries
provide information on retaining author rights to inform faculty, and some also provide talking points or model language for faculty to utilize when negotiating with a
publisher. For example, the SPARC Author Addendum (http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/authors/addendum) provides helpful information and suggested
language to use. While these helpful tools exist, it is important to remember that this is a negotiation. Publishers may not accept all, or any, of these terms.
In addition to helping faculty navigate the open access environment, libraries are becoming publishers themselves. A number of libraries have utilized Open
Journal Systems (https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/) to provide a platform for open access journals. SCOAP (http://scoap3.org/), a consortium of libraries, funding agencies,
and research centers have partnered to fund open access publishing in particle physics. Knowledge Unlatched is a new program where libraries can pool funding
to support open access book publishing. As more libraries join the group, the costs for individual libraries are reduced.
As libraries move to publishing, they must not forget their primary mission to preserve and provide access. Libraries have long preserved journal materials and
many support online journal preservation initiatives such as LOCKSS and Portico. Now libraries need to preserve journal materials they themselves help to
publish. A common strategy is to put these materials into an institutional repository, which is engineered to both preserve and provide access to these digital
materials. But is this enough? What guarantee do we have that library repositories will be around for decades or centuries to come? Should institutions develop
state, regional, or disciplinary programs to strengthen the safety net for these materials? In essence, who is backing up the library?
Open access publishing is providing numerous opportunities for libraries to engage with their faculty and assert their value to the academic enterprise in new and
innovative ways. Libraries are employing different strategies to support open access publishing, from funding author fees to publishing and preserving open access
journals. This interest group discussion revealed that even as libraries transform themselves into active agents in open access publishing, many questions remain.
Notes
1.
Ithaka S+R. (2013). US Faculty Survey 2012. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sr.ithaka.org/sites/default/files/reports/Ithaka_SR_US_Faculty_Survey_2012_FINAL.pdf
2.
Smith, K. L. (2012). Why open access? the policy environment and process on one university campus. Insights, 25(3), 246–250. doi:10.1629/2048-
7754.25.3.246